Re: NEWS EU On Track To Strengthen 'Intellectual Monopolies' - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: NEWS EU On Track To Strengthen 'Intellectual Monopolies' - Linux ; On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:50:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > freetards worst nightmare... > > http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...guiLanguage=en > > ------ > MEMO/08/508 > > Brussels, 16 July 2008 > > Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension Frequently ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: NEWS EU On Track To Strengthen 'Intellectual Monopolies'

  1. Re: NEWS EU On Track To Strengthen 'Intellectual Monopolies'

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:50:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > freetards worst nightmare...
    >
    > http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...guiLanguage=en
    >
    > ------
    > MEMO/08/508
    >
    > Brussels, 16 July 2008
    >
    > Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension Frequently Asked
    > Questions (see IP/08/1156)
    >
    > 1. What is meant by term extension?
    >
    > Under current EU laws, recorded musical performances are protected for a
    > maximum of 50 years. This means that over a period of 50 years,
    > performers receive remuneration for each time their work is played on
    > the air, in public places such as bars and discotheques and also receive
    > compensation payment for private copying of their performances. After 50
    > years, artists lose control over the use of their works and no longer
    > receive this important source of income.
    >
    > Composers on the other hand enjoy this form of copyright protection for
    > 70 years after their death.
    >
    > With this proposal, the Commission aims to extend the term of copyright
    > for performers to 95 years. This means that artists in Europe will be
    > insured of a steady income for their performances during their entire
    > lifetime.
    >
    >
    > 2. Why is this directive aimed at performers?
    >
    > If the present term of 50 years is kept, some 7.000 performers, in the
    > UK alone, will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten
    > years. We are not talking about featured artists like Sir Cliff Richard
    > or the Beatles here. This is about the thousands of anonymous session
    > musicians[1], who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties
    > and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their
    > recordings, even though these royalties often contribute to their
    > pension. They will lose protection just when online retailing promises a
    > new source of revenue.


    Every time a commercial that I have played on gets aired I get paid.
    I was getting royalties for a Pepsi commercial I played on years after the
    session because although it was not being played in USA it WAS being aired
    in Japan.



    > (Report commissioned by HM Treasury), December 2006
    >
    > Available at:
    > http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/indepen...view_index.cfm
    >
    > [4] Directive 2006/116/EC, OJ L 372 of 27.12.2006, p. 12
    > ------
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.



    Schestowitz and [Homer] must be in mourning.

    Watch for them to blame it all on some conspiracy and ultimately somehow,
    someway blame Microsoft for the entire affair.

    The problem with freetards is that they don't believe in compensating
    people for their work.
    They think everything should be free for all.
    Yet these very same people, Mark Kent, are the first ones to use their
    proprietary knowledge to generate income.

    I'll bet Mark Kent and his company are having a party over this one!





    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  2. Re: NEWS EU On Track To Strengthen 'Intellectual Monopolies'

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:50:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    >> freetards worst nightmare...
    >>
    >> http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...guiLanguage=en
    >>
    >> ------
    >> MEMO/08/508
    >>
    >> Brussels, 16 July 2008
    >>
    >> Commission Proposal on a Directive for Term Extension Frequently Asked
    >> Questions (see IP/08/1156)
    >>
    >> 1. What is meant by term extension?
    >>
    >> Under current EU laws, recorded musical performances are protected for a
    >> maximum of 50 years. This means that over a period of 50 years,
    >> performers receive remuneration for each time their work is played on
    >> the air, in public places such as bars and discotheques and also receive
    >> compensation payment for private copying of their performances. After 50
    >> years, artists lose control over the use of their works and no longer
    >> receive this important source of income.
    >>
    >> Composers on the other hand enjoy this form of copyright protection for
    >> 70 years after their death.
    >>
    >> With this proposal, the Commission aims to extend the term of copyright
    >> for performers to 95 years. This means that artists in Europe will be
    >> insured of a steady income for their performances during their entire
    >> lifetime.
    >>
    >>
    >> 2. Why is this directive aimed at performers?
    >>
    >> If the present term of 50 years is kept, some 7.000 performers, in the
    >> UK alone, will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten
    >> years. We are not talking about featured artists like Sir Cliff Richard
    >> or the Beatles here. This is about the thousands of anonymous session
    >> musicians[1], who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties
    >> and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their
    >> recordings, even though these royalties often contribute to their
    >> pension. They will lose protection just when online retailing promises a
    >> new source of revenue.

    >
    > Every time a commercial that I have played on gets aired I get paid.
    > I was getting royalties for a Pepsi commercial I played on years after the
    > session because although it was not being played in USA it WAS being aired
    > in Japan.
    >
    >
    >
    >> (Report commissioned by HM Treasury), December 2006
    >>
    >> Available at:
    >> http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/indepen...view_index.cfm
    >>
    >> [4] Directive 2006/116/EC, OJ L 372 of 27.12.2006, p. 12
    >> ------
    >>
    >> regards,
    >> alexander.

    >
    >
    > Schestowitz and [Homer] must be in mourning.



    Why do you dweebs keep blurring the lines? There is a big difference
    between copyright and patenting of software.

+ Reply to Thread